Where do we begin to co-exist?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Seriously...where do we start?

I do not want this to become a gay, religious, abortion thread. I am sincere in my desire to co-exist, but I cannot get through the rhetoric.

In this forum, republicans are compared to Nazi's...

Supporters of the war are called Gung-Ho.......

I cannot see through the rhetoric.....and I find this place driving me back away from the center lately.

So....what can we do to co-exist?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.. perhaps that is why I haven't been reading here so much lately? I would like us all to co-exist too!

I don't compare Republicans to Nazi's :tsk:

I avoid the subject of war as I believe that peace can and should be first and can't move beyond that fact to take an interest.
 
And the left are called un-patriotic, murderers, and immoral.

People have lost all sight of the gray, all ability to compromise, and all ability to look past their absolutes, which never really exist.

Once we're able to see the gray we can move on, but now it's just red and blue, left and right, Christian and Muslim, etc...
 
And I did not mean to leave the left out of my inital post. There has been a lot of that in here too.

I am just listening to the U2 concert...and I am feeling bummed out, that the message is not reaching this forum.
 
To me co-existing means I don't have to like what someone else thinks or does, but it's not my right to stick my nose in and make him/her change to fit my view. You (that you means anyone/everyone) can believe whatever the hell you want (no matter how ludicrous I find it :wink: ), as long as you don't deprive someone else of the same rights you demand for yourself.

To me that means that religion, medical decisions, marriage status, sexual orientation, etc., etc., should be private matters and not something the majority decides.

We could all coexist a whole hell of a lot better if we would just keep our noses out of other people's business.
 
The message surely does not reach me. I´m still sick enough of my last personal run-ins here, thank you. Why waste my time trying to offer new views to people who absolutely don´t appreciate that? It´s more intelligent to call the American President to lobby. I hate wasting my energy, and that´s exactly what I would do by complaining about the exclusivity of threads or having to defend myself against a bunch of people (who will never seriously critisize or doubt anything that has to do with military because they are or were part of it) when they cry for mods because they feel oh so personally attacked when I´m not as fucking polite as when I call the White House.

I selectively comment when I have to say something, people can read it and agree or disagree, and I will continue to stay out of discussions with certain posters. It´s just more comfortable, and politically defined, that´s exactly what peaceful co-existence means.

Nuff´said.
 
I think we do coexist, and do so peacefully. If you take a look around the world, you will see what the flip side of this is.

But maybe we (as in the general 'we' - not you and I) don't like each other? I don't know, is there a benefit to everyone getting along? Surely. But since the beginning of time, people have quibbled over everything, and maybe that is human nature. Maybe there are gaps we cannot bridge and never will, so the best thing to do is to figure out how to coexist in peace without necessarily having to hold one another in high regard.

I often wonder - is it necessary to respect a person in order to leave them be in peace?
 
Oh, there are posters here I rarely read anything they write anymore. I'm not going to change their views and they won't change mine. Best just to leave each other be.
 
Dreadsox said:
Seriously...where do we start?

I do not want this to become a gay, religious, abortion thread. I am sincere in my desire to co-exist, but I cannot get through the rhetoric.

In this forum, republicans are compared to Nazi's...

Supporters of the war are called Gung-Ho.......

I cannot see through the rhetoric.....and I find this place driving me back away from the center lately.

So....what can we do to co-exist?

These are good questions


I thought the article I posted by Danforth was a good example of how the different groups could get along.
He is/ was a Republican that knows how to co-exist.
That thread got sidetracked big time on shaivo.

Looking outside of this forum, I can add this.

I was raised in a very religious conservative environment and we had no problem coexisting because we had no expectation of being able to dominate. It was the 60s and 70s.
We were just happy if we could have our standards and beliefs inside of our community and not have government or others intrude.

Now, with the right having a concentration of power it seems like they are always starting on the 5 yard line and will not accept that every play is not a touch down.

Perhaps if the Liberals had control of both houses and the Whitehouse they would be playing hardball, too.
But that is not the issue, is it?
 
I have some very strong opinions.

So do many of the other people who visit this forum.

That does not mean we cannot coexist.

In fact, we do, pretty much. We all come here, and we speak our piece, even when doing so places us in direct opposition to someone else. I haven't been here very long, but so far I haven't seen unrestrained flaming, haven't heard of any incident of outside harrassment (by email, messenger, etc.) by a member of the forum toward another.

Seems the same to me as the rest of the time. Americans aren't happy at the moment. It seems that the whole country is feeling a little tense right now. There's a lot of fierce rhetoric flying around. Things are going on in the world that people have very strong opinions about, and they aren't holding their tongues. But I haven't seen any rioting in the streets; the national guard hasn't been called out...

If by coexistence, you mean a general concesus of opinion that provides more of a sense of stability and unity within the nation; a period of time when folks don't spend a lot of time arguing, debating, disagreeing, and just generally getting on each others nerves--good luck. I don't know if we've ever had such a time, and we may never have.

I have a neighbor who I get a long with really well; I consider her a friend, and I enjoy her company. But we do not agree, politically. We argue like crazy sometimes--about Bush, Iraq, Republicans vs. Democrats. She calls me 'that damn Democrat'; I call her 'that stupid Republican'.

But we're still friends. We still sit at each other's table, we still drink each other's coffee. I listen to her complain about her messy son, she listens to me complain about my incompetent co-workers. Politics isn't everything.
 
deep said:


Perhaps if the Liberals had control of both houses and the Whitehouse they would be playing hardball, too.
But that is not the issue, is it?

You don't think Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, James Carville, and others play hard ball?
 
Dreadsox said:
In this forum, republicans are compared to Nazi's...

And in the real world, gay activists pursuing equality are often compared to Nazis by conservatives. Here's a recent quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/18/spain.same.sex.ap/index.html

"This demonstration is the people's response to the government's provocations," said Fr. Jose Ramon Velasco. We're not against homosexuals but allowing them to marry degrades matrimony.

"And they shouldn't have the right to adopt because if those children turn out to be homosexual, who will be to blame, the government?"

Velasco compared the bill to the beginnings of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

"Back then the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back this law," he said. "I'm serious, give it time and it will destroy the moral fiber of Spain and the West."

And didn't Rick Santorum call liberals Nazis or something of the sort? And let's not forget Ann Coulter and her venom that is "Treason."

It, frankly, goes both ways. Conservatives have been dishing out the shit for years, calling liberals everything from communists to homosexual to traitors to terrorists to Nazis, but they certainly don't know how to take it.

But hey...guess what? Shades of gray and nuance are out of style. That's "wishy-washy relativist," and that's nothing more than a code word for "godless" and "amoral." So when the Left stands up for itself finally, then everyone acts like civilization is about to collapse. Sorry, if you all hate the tone of the rhetoric in this nation, the blame goes squarely to the Right, and we're reaping what they've sowed.

Melon
 
80sU2isBest said:


You don't think Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, James Carville, and others play hard ball?

I'll see your lot

and raise you with

Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Sen. Santorum




the point is, of the ten
only Sen. Kennedy and Santorum have real power. Power to pass legistration and approve appointments.

and Kennedy with 44 Democrats has much less power than Santorum even thought more Americans voted for the Democratic Senators the did vote for the GOP Senators.
 
Re: Re: Where do we begin to co-exist?

melon said:

Sorry, if you all hate the tone of the rhetoric in this nation, the blame goes squarely to the Right, and we're reaping what they've sowed.

Melon

:barf:

And it's not narrow minded rhetoric like this that's not responsible for the nasty tone in the country? The right AND left are equally responsible for the nasty rhetoric. Anyone who says otherwise is dillusional.
 
80sU2isBest said:


You don't think Al Gore,
I think Al can be a wuss most times.

80sU2isBest said:

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson,
I think they can both be a littley looney sometimes, especially JJ recently with the Jackson trial.


80sU2isBest said:

Ted Kennedy, James Carville, and others play hard ball?

Ted is extremely intelligent and does a lot of good sometimes and other times I'm ashamed. James on the other hand can talk tough but really doesn't hold much power.
 
Re: Re: Re: Where do we begin to co-exist?

ImOuttaControl said:


:barf:

And it's not narrow minded rhetoric like this that's not responsible for the nasty tone in the country? The right AND left are equally responsible for the nasty rhetoric. Anyone who says otherwise is dillusional.

I agree that the left and right are both responsible, but can we really say the country was AS divided under Clinton? Think about it.

Anyways I took this thread to be more general and not just about the US, but maybe I was wrong.
 
Clinton presided over the end of history, Bush wound up with the reboot.

It is US-centric and it always is; when somebody says conservative or right it comes down to abortion and gay rights and the players on the US political scene who are against it. Nobody ever thinks about Churchill or Disraeli let alone the thinkers like Rand, Hayek or Strauss; the political philosophies that influence the right, the history of it and the state that it is in today. Or even bother to look objectively at the right; which is really just everybody who is not considered to be left or tow that line and it's positions. I read plenty of right leaning publications and I do see the big bad right as portrayed by greens, marxists and socialists as almost a caricature of the reality.

The best debate is to be found in between different schools of "right" thinking because there is such variety of ideas and ideals.
 
Last edited:
indra said:
To me co-existing means I don't have to like what someone else thinks or does, but it's not my right to stick my nose in and make him/her change to fit my view. You (that you means anyone/everyone) can believe whatever the hell you want (no matter how ludicrous I find it :wink: ), as long as you don't deprive someone else of the same rights you demand for yourself.

To me that means that religion, medical decisions, marriage status, sexual orientation, etc., etc., should be private matters and not something the majority decides.

We could all coexist a whole hell of a lot better if we would just keep our noses out of other people's business.

Agree wholeheartedly with your post, indra :up: :).

And yes, I think both the left and the right can really make their respective sides look bad at times. It's the extremists on both sides that cause a lot of the problems, I think.

Angela
 
A_Wanderer said:
Clinton presided over the end of history, Bush wound up with the reboot.

It is US-centric and it always is; when somebody says conservative or right it comes down to abortion and gay rights and the players on the US political scene who are against it. Nobody ever thinks about Churchill or Disraeli let alone the thinkers like Rand, Hayek or Strauss; the political philosophies that influence the right, the history of it and the state that it is in today. Or even bother to look objectively at the right; which is really just everybody who is not considered to be left or tow that line and it's positions. I read plenty of right leaning publications and I do see the big bad right as portrayed by greens, marxists and socialists as almost a caricature of the reality.

The best debate is to be found in between different schools of "right" thinking because there is such variety of ideas and ideals.

But how much is this the right's fault? I've seen many in here that have stated they voted conservative for these reasons alone.

We all make caricatures of ourselves, but the right has done a damn good job of feeding these stereotypes, let's not forget that.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where do we begin to co-exist?

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Anyways I took this thread to be more general and not just about the US, but maybe I was wrong.

I think that outside of the U.S., liberals and conservatives do coexist. My point was that I don't think the Republican Party is frankly interested in cohabitation. They're solely interested in their way and their way alone. And with that territory comes rampant hypocrisy; a hypocrisy that blocked hundreds of judges during the Clinton Administration, but whines like a hyena when Democrats block less than 10.

And I've been paying attention to Canada, which, up to this point, was living in relative cohabitation. That is, until Stephen Harper started hiring U.S. Republican strategists to try and use gay marriage as a wedge issue, and now post-PC Canada is seemingly starting to devolve into the same petty debates and divisiveness.

When I blame the Right for this bitter partisan rhetoric, I don't say it to be contrary. No, frankly, it really is their fault, because I see absolutely no evidence that conservatives at all are interested in compromise.

Melon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where do we begin to co-exist?

melon said:


I think that outside of the U.S., liberals and conservatives do coexist. My point was that I don't think the Republican Party is frankly interested in cohabitation. They're solely interested in their way and their way alone. And with that territory comes rampant hypocrisy; a hypocrisy that blocked hundreds of judges during the Clinton Administration, but whines like a hyena when Democrats block less than 10.

And I've been paying attention to Canada, which, up to this point, was living in relative cohabitation. That is, until Stephen Harper started hiring U.S. Republican strategists to try and use gay marriage as a wedge issue, and now post-PC Canada is seemingly starting to devolve into the same petty debates and divisiveness.

When I blame the Right for this bitter partisan rhetoric, I don't say it to be contrary. No, frankly, it really is their fault, because I see absolutely no evidence that conservatives at all are interested in compromise.

Melon

I agree to a certain point, the right here in the US will not be interested in coexistance until they lose power.
 
On a side note, a lot of what constitutes the "conservative" movement in the US today is really best characterized as a right leaning populism. The more classical conservatism, which had more of a liberitarian streak to it, seems to have been pushed to the wayside a bit (the conservatism of the thinkers A_Wanderer mentioned). Many "conservative" pundits on TV would back Bush even if he advocated big government.
 
Which he does in his social spending; the compassionate side of "compassionate conservatism" is an excuse for big government social regulation.
 
i long for the day that Pepsi and Coca-Cola can be friends, and someday work together in forming the ultimate cola.
 
I don't post a lot on FYM because I find myself being one of the wishy-washy types who comes across as kind of, well, let's just say if I ran for office Karl Rove would have a field day.

For instance, I feel the war in Iraq has been a mistake. It was handled poorly, fought at the wrong time, with faulty intelligence which the powers at be very likely lied about.

On the other hand...I am optimistic that the motives for going into Iraq were not bad ones---to take out a murderous dictator whose actions had led to thousands of deaths as well as sanctions that were only hurting his people. To try to start a arab democracy in the middle east which would hopefully encourage other countries in the region to embrace democracy and thereby curbing the people's desire to join terrorist groups, etc.

It's unfortunate that many pro-war types like to question the patriotism of those who disagree with them--or make the argument that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Just like it is unfortunate that some anti-war protesters used simplistic soundbites like "no blood for oil" "war is bad" or "What did Saddam ever do to us" to make their points when there were so much better arguments out there. But in today's political climate it is not surprising :| Comparing someone a nazi has lost a lot of it's offensivness, simply because it has become such a cliche.

And before I start coming off as conservative leaning, let me just say I agree with Melon that the right (not all, just some with great amounts of power) does bear a bit more of the blame for this climate of division by making everything into a black and white issue.

Okay, off my soapbox and back to other pressing topics, namely, the state of Bono's hair....
 
A_Wanderer said:
Which he does in his social spending; the compassionate side of "compassionate conservatism" is an excuse for big government social regulation.

cough cough BULLSHIT

That's the biggest escapism I've seen in this forum ever! I can't believe someone as intelligent as you would say something like this. His big government has nothing to do with compassion!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom